.png.5ff10cca1d0967e44a17e4a2edde2a80.png)
Soundings
-
Posts
667 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by Soundings
-
-
JM that is bx an you know it. Stay in Suffolk - Oulton Broad is not what it was either and certainly we would rather the likes of you stay away. One thing for sure I would rather stay here than be in Wroxham, which is now (or soon to be) part of Norwich! But then perhaps you mean Hoveton.
In any event, boats and holidays are not everything and to be perfectly honest nor are pubs.
-
1
-
-
I agree NN, it is the short sightedness of the owners that is the problem. They just want income to be maintained at an unrealistic level I suspect and without being prepared to invest in the fabric. Just look at the last attempt to make it work. It was hardly a significant refurb, it more like a tenant coming and throwing a few cans of white paint about. It was still a cavernous unwelcoming shed and I reckon the business would have died irrespective of the personal issues that ensued.
-
1
-
-
I still believe the BH could be given a new lease of life with some adventurous thinking. Sitting there is the gardens is ideal so all we need is some ideas for the inside - a way to get away from that cavernous shed look.
-
2 hours ago, RickWhiteHorse said:
It is a site I am looking at
I'm probably missing something but - I was so deleted question.
-
On 19 January 2016 at 9:13 AM, Saily said:
Side-thought: Anybody else getting fed up with all new developments looking like each other (rather like in-town shopping malls - which town am I in? they all look the same) and despite most buyers of these new houses having one or two cars there is serious under-provision of anywhere to keep them resulting in most new estates being jam-packed slums of the future with vehicles abandoned across footpaths and poor access for emergency vehicles and prams/wheelchairs/mobility scooters, not to mention just plain ugly - not somewhere I'd want to live, thanks.
Absolutely hate it. If we have to build why can we not built in keeping with the local area and with some individuality. I guess the problem is the average house comes off the back of a lorry these days, mass produced if you will, and the argument is, no doubt, that it will be more expensive to do otherwise. As for parking, I have never been able to understand that, except that 6 parking spaces = one house! But, yes, the roads (and pavements) on all new estates appear to immediately become car parks!
-
18 minutes ago, Saily said:
My suggestion about giving up cars was a reaction to the 'don't want the new roads' argument. With one or two notable exceptions, most opposers of roads (or houses, or in fact any new development) are those who already have those things and want to use them (but don't want others to have them as it will spoil the environment), and they're the same folks who sit in jams complaining about too many cars - without seeing the irony.
The NDR is coming; it's been decided, so there's no point in arguing the toss, that time is past.
This topic was intended as useful to advise about new roadworks relating to the NDR and I think would have been useful for a while, however, the route is readily available online here
and from what I've seen, the plan is to start in multiple places at once (the only way they could do it in the time planned, of course). Most of those places which affect existing roads are now clearly visible by the preparatory works in progress, so a quick look at the map will now easily show places which will be held up for the next 18 months or so....
Will be interesting to compare how well they stick to time compared with the Elveden stretch a couple of years ago - this bit is longer with more roundabouts and bridges but still planned for a shorter project - I see the Aviation Museum at the airport is to move - that will be worth watching for any interested folks, given that most of the bigger exhibits flew in and are now fenced off from the airport
We have reduced from two cars to one and use things like park and ride and trains as much as we realistically can. It is unfortunate that the government lost the plot/battle re getting people onto public transport, which imo is mainly due to the fact that it is often still cheaper by car, or cheap enough to render the hassle of public transport a non starter.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:
In general, in my opinion you're almost quite right, Soundings. Almost but I would argue with some feeling that conservation is already the BA's premier concern. Your last sentence, spot on.
I knew you'd say that JM, and of course you are probably spot on in your assessment imo.
-
Another short post Robin
If that is the way it will go then that is the end of the Broads and, indeed, much of he nature that tries to thrive within. If that is what people want or are willing to accept (and in the name of profit) then that is very sad imo. Putting on tin hat - maybe conservation should be the premier concern of the BA. Certainly the desire of the yards to make more money at the expense of something special needs to be stopped.
-
50 minutes ago, LondonRascal said:
My prediction: Within the next five years I can well see all new built hire boats not having gas onboard and in the next 10 years all legacy craft being converted to make gas use, its associated safety risks, annual inspections and bottle storage and replacements a thing of the past.
Won't happen, no way. It is not feasible. What will they use in place of gas, especially re the older boats. Will they all use leccie and plug in? If so where will all those leccie points come from, where are they going to site them, and who will pay! If they are going to bin gas they might as well bin petrol whilst at it for that can be volatile.
Sorry Robin but it won't happen......at least not for years and years and years.
-
4
-
-
That's your opinion Polly but I have to say that has not been my experience. The Broads were awful in the 70s yes but people were more accommodating and had a better sense of values and community. That is not the case now - it is all about me first, middle and last. Of course there are exceptions but those exceptions are fast becoming less frequent. Also there are far more holiday opportunities theses days so it is easy to go somewhere else.
I agree the Broads won't die but they will change - just like the nightclubs have changed Norwich (or parts of it).
-
1
-
-
True Poppy, but it will eventually kill the Broads, at least for those who want a "traditional" boating holiday - serene, quiet, relaxing etc. etc. Yes the Broads will remain packed to the gunwales but it will be more like Norwich on a Friday night I fear :-(
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, littlesprite said:
If people need to run engines between 08.00 and 20.00hrs I don't really see it being the end of the world, after all moor at somewhere like Ludham and the moving boat traffic sounds like a permanent engine running anyway, and you get the wash as well. After 20.00hrs and I do get a bit annoyed, but equally I get upset when woken at 01.00 in the morning by someone navigating at night, perfectly legal and done with common sense no problem, speed and high revs and I could kill them.
We all have to live together and that requires give and take, or do we ban anything that upsets anyone, with thought and consideration we should all manage to enjoy our time on the broads.
So when should they stop running their engines 10pm, midnight or not at all? Surely there has to be a reasonable cut-off and 8pm works for me as it will for most I reckon, especially those with young children or those who need early rest. Mind you the high tech nature of some boats makes running the engine almost a necessity and that needs looking at too. The Broads are heading in the wrong direction imho - boats that need to run their engines at all hours, people who support that and less and less moorings which means that those who want peace cannot get away from the crowds.
-
3
-
-
On 20 January 2016 at 9:13 AM, Saily said:
Final thought - if we don't want all these new roads, why don't 1 in 3 of us volunteer to give up our cars???? Nah, didn't think you would.
Do you think that public transport is sufficient to support that, especially out in the sticks?
And that sprawl south of Wroxhan is awful, I agree...as is the sprawl to the north of it at Hoveton and Stalham. Then of course we have Brundall. Development will not be contained, not now we have the A11 corridor and the A47 upgrade. You are right though, everything looks the same, it will completely knock the character out of the area and, yes, I do believe they are the slums of tomorrow. If we have to build can we please build sympathetically!
-
21 hours ago, senator said:
The A11 duelling is now a massive success, shame they took 10 years to put in the last bit through Eleveden, seems it is a feature of any major road works in Nofolk given they are going to miss a bit of this one too
True, but they are now talking of the A11 corridor for development. Looks at the plans for Thetford already.
-
11 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:
So vote for the ones who ARE local! That's a matter well within your control
How is that MM? I always do, its the other buggers. That is the wonderful thing about democracy, it stops anything being under the control of an individual. Either way, one is probably still voting for a career politician. A person of some intellect and whose name I cannot recall allegedly said - if a person aspires to be a politician then that in itself is probably a very good reason why they should never be one.
-
2
-
-
Don't disagree with any of that Marshman, and it is the political nature of housing that causes the problem. That is why I mentioned the local council removing the requirement for our local build to include affordable. If I remember correctly the council actually posted a planning change notice and it was because of this that I asked them the question. I suspect the speed of new building was not meeting their target so they invented what to me seems like a bribe - start construction in the next month and we will take out the requirement to build affordable. But then local authorities are nor run by local people these days are they - they are career level councillors, at the higher levels anyway. Makes the concept of local government something of a joke!
-
That bottle neck at Wroxham will get worse as they build more. Those living Hoveton side will be tempted to head for Acle via the Stalham by-pass I guess. There you go the next dual carriageway project
-
Labrador, I am not completely up to date re the NDR route, but will it impact on Wroxham? I seem to recall you having said your view will be blighted.
-
We all have our opinions Marshman and you and I won't agree own this one. If we really need the housing, why are there three perfectly reasonable houses close by that have not sold (there are other instances also). You make the point re price, but do you really believe this are going to drop. If house prices drop builders will stop building as the income stream will not be sufficient - and especially so as for every estate that is built it seems the builders have to provide the infrastructure the council cannot afford. And as someone pointed out elsewhere - new pads do seem to sell so clearly they are not completely unaffordable. The little estate in Potter could hardly be said to have been cheap and that sold out quick enough.
Norfolk unemployment might be low but the quality of the jobs is not necessarily high and as has rightly been pointed out nor are the wages. In any event I am not sure that employment being low is a measure of job availability.
Don't get me wrong I am all for providing housing for the locals, what I am against is wholesale building that is driven as much (probably more) by political ambition as it is by necessity. And building that is not in keeping with the area and has absolutely no "sole". You may love estates full of wooden boxes, Marshman, but I most certainly do not. My take is we are building the slums of tomorrow and as a Londoner I do know what they were like (although I was fortunate enough not to have to live on one).
There clearly has to be a balance but we have not found it and we need to before it is too late. You are right regrading the rental market and it is that that needs working on, for those who cannot afford to buy - well they need another workable and affordable solution so they do not have to buy what they cannot afford. On that point and referring to the new houses here - as I understand it the council waived the requirement for a proportion of the houses to be "affordable" (whatever that really means) so as to get the construction work started sooner.
-
8 minutes ago, TheQ said:
The problem with employment is:
Companies can't find staff because they are unwilling / unable to pay enough Money.
Prospective employees can't find a job because they can't afford the money being offered.
Or it could be some people have an inflated opinion of what they are worth (probably a bit of each). At the end of the day though a company can only pay what it can afford - if it goes beyond that the receiver is a likely visitor and that scenario helps no one.
-
It is said Norwich is growing with plenty of jobs and therefore houses are needed. Is that really true? I have spoken to several people of late who reckon finding employment around Norwich remains very difficult. Add to that the small new development here in Potter which is almost exclusively retired people and I do question the work situation. I do however agree we may need housing for local people but the local development suggests it is not necessarily locals who buy them.
I really do wonder how much of this build, build, build is down to local councils finding income streams to replace lost Govt funding. Councils always speak of growth (continuous growth at that), new business, attracting people to the area. Why? There is a reference in this thread to global warming and which questions why we have done so little (I agree), but will not uncontrolled growth due to the never ending quest for money, influence and power be equally as devastating? An entire rural area concreted over and once it has gone it is gone. Then, where will the next "growth spurt" be located - well I suppose we are ok until Norwich meets Yarmouth!
And has been said elsewhere, building in not restricted to the land inside the new road. They are building out at Wroxham, Hoveton, Stalham, Caister, Martham, Brundal, Bloefield along, no doubt, with many other places. Infrastructure projects are also good for Govt employment and productivity numbers. Are we building our way out of a recession? To add salt to the wounds, I am sure we have all read that the A11 is now going to be some sort of high tech corridor. Another bit outside the confines of the new road that will undoubtably decimate some lovely countryside - that is not to mention theplanne and approved growth at Thetford.
I have been "blue" all my life but am beginning to have doubts. Our planning controls have gone awry and are to my mind out of control. Which is exactly what our dear PM, Dave, wanted. Granted the old way had its problems but the pendulum has swung too far, I do not like the presumption that planning will be approved. Sorry for the rant
-
Wroxham is already ruined and to be honest Hoveton is not far behind - this will all be horrendous. Just look at the building going in from Wroxham to Blue Boar, it will all become just a Norwich suburb. When you add to that all the other stuff like 1200 houses in Stalham (with perhaps more I am told) and Martham fighting development it all looks scary. I am certainly with Labrador on all his but regrettably feel the days of sleepy Norfolk and the haven called the Broads is nearing the end game.
We live at the back end of Potter way down past the church. It was a lovely rural location, with wonderful views. It still is but 6 years ago the by-pass was not really evident whilst now it very noticeable as the traffic levels are growing. It is an unfortunate but inevitable by-product.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, Labrador said:
It's this damn spell checker on my tablet. Did put wether, honest
I know just what you mean Labrador. Predictive text is a pain in the proverbial - great WHEN it works.
-
10 hours ago, Labrador said:
If you allow smoking only pubs, the only person who could work in there would be the landlord. One of the main reasons given at the time was that on health and safety grounds your employees should not be exposed to the smoke (weather they smoke or not). Anyway why should pubs be singled out? This law covers all places of public access, and I totally agree with it. By the way I smoke .
I am not suggesting it should happen, I am just saying I would not be against it. As for the employment thing - there is an argument that says if you know the risk etc. etc., but health and safety has never adopted a sensible approach to such matters imo. All that said, I am fundamentally against smoking being allowed wherever it can impact on others who do not smoke. Must say I am not sure what the "weather" has to do with it though.....sorry could not resist
Does the law cover ALL places of public access? Does it include parks and other outdoor space?
-
1
-
Broadshaven
in Broads Chat
Posted
JM, now I have calmed down a little could you please explain how "Potter" - and please define the entity - can be responsible for Latham's having sold out to QD or the quality of the chippy - incidentally a holiday chappie in the Falgate today told me he had just had excellent food from that establishment.
Mind you I am pleased the fishing tackle has deteriorated. I am of the view that all such outlets should be shut and fishing viewed in the same light as fox hunting. I do not begrudge those who partake of the "sport" but I certainly do not agree with it ...each to his own. It is a legal pastime that many enjoy and I accept that.